# Post Count & Forum Games



## yiran

It is obvious that the post count of individual users has some degree of significance to them, whether it be (forum) age or maturity or anything else. There is even an "evolution chain" linked to it, so clearly it is an integral part of the site. Even if it is a inaccurate measure, it definitely has _some_ significance.

Now, it is also obvious that Forum Games forum's posts are short, often without much substantial info other than continuing the game. This is very different from the posts made in say, the Serious Business forum, where most posts contain carefully thought-out logic and arguments.

My suggestion is to *make posts in the Forum Games forum not count towards a user's post count*. I am aware that this may reduce existing users' post counts, but I don't think it's too big of a problem.

Any further ideas?


----------



## Music Dragon

Here we go again!


----------



## yiran

Okay, I briefly checked the older threads but none of them suggested this alternative (that or I didn't check carefully enough). So I'm not too sure what you're getting at. :s


----------



## ultraviolet

pretty sure they all have at least once, actually! discussion usually goes:


 postcount should count posts
if posts are not worth being counted they shouldn't _be_ posts
so let's get rid of forum games
but hey I like forum games, it is a fun place and I like to be there
that's just because you have a huge post count from posting there all the time
so let's turn off postcount in there
but postcount should count all the posts because otherwise it's not really _counting posts_, thus rendering that statistic kinda meaningless
 and then Butterfree comes in and says that it doesn't really do any harm to the forum and people like forum games so there's no reason to get rid of it or the postcount in forum games. 

that is unless someone has something new to say? idk I've never seen any point of postcount _at all_ but maybe I'm just missing something. I get that it counts posts: but I don't get what meaning or relevance this has to anything. why is it more or less relevant than threadcount? posts are judged by content not quantity anyway, aren't they? idk it's just a number that appears under my avatar but it doesn't really mean anything other than 'you've posted 3000+ times' and who even cares about that

or we could chuck forum games in social grou-- uv don't kid yourself nobody wants that


----------



## Music Dragon

yiran said:


> Okay, I briefly checked the older threads but none of them suggested this alternative (that or I didn't check carefully enough). So I'm not too sure what you're getting at. :s


No, that alternative pops up very frequently.

Basically: post count counts posts. Not useful posts, not long posts, not thought-out posts... just posts. Forum games posts being short and meaningless is only an issue if you actually believe post counts represents something meaningful in the first place.


----------



## yiran

ultraviolet said:


> that is unless someone has something new to say? idk I've never seen any point of postcount _at all_ but maybe I'm just missing something. I get that it counts posts: but I don't get what meaning or relevance this has to anything. why is it more or less relevant than threadcount? posts are judged by content not quantity anyway, aren't they? idk it's just a number that appears under my avatar but it doesn't really mean anything other than 'you've posted 3000+ times' and who even cares about that


This is your conscious mentality; but you probably value post count somewhat, no matter how little, in your mind. You'll say you don't. Even if you don't actually count it subconsciously, there are definitely people out there who do. So a reason against Forum Games' posts counting could be housing post count ++ threads.

Anyway, I guess I didn't look at the threads carefully enough then. And even though you know what came out of this discussion last time, you don't have to expect the same thing every time the same topic comes up, especially because there are different people participating and the people who participated in both may have changed.

Well, this evidently isn't doing any harm, so I'd like to just see how it's received.


----------



## ultraviolet

yiran said:


> This is your conscious mentality; but you probably value post count somewhat, no matter how little, in your mind. You'll say you don't. Even if you don't actually count it subconsciously, there are definitely people out there who do. So a reason against Forum Games' posts counting could be housing post count ++ threads.


why would postcount of all things be something that is clung to by my subconscious? why does my subconscious care about numbers at all? I'm an arts student! :D

I know there are people out there that do, that is why I am asking why people _do _care about postcount. And yeah, forum games are probably at least partly about postcount+, but why is that a problem? I don't care about postcount, but if it's just to count posts, what difference do postcount+ threads make unless we're attaching more significance to postcount than just a number that goes up when you do a thing?



> Anyway, I guess I didn't look at the threads carefully enough then. And even though you know what came out of this discussion last time, you don't have to expect the same thing every time the same topic comes up, especially because there are different people participating and the people who participated in both may have changed.
> 
> Well, this evidently isn't doing any harm, so I'd like to just see how it's received.


I know, that's why I asked if anyone had anything new to say and left the thread open. o_o' just thought you'd appreciate the catch-up on what people usually do say about this topic and so people don't have to repeat themselves.


----------



## Autumn

I remember I used to have the biggest postcount on tr'srockin! until someone came in and posted a lot more than me

I promptly hated them for it for no real reason :D

(and then everyone started overtaking me cause they all rp'd like crazy but that's different)


----------



## yiran

ultraviolet said:


> why would postcount of all things be something that is clung to by my subconscious? why does my subconscious care about numbers at all? I'm an arts student! :D
> 
> I know there are people out there that do, that is why I am asking why people _do _care about postcount. And yeah, forum games are probably at least partly about postcount+, but why is that a problem? I don't care about postcount, but if it's just to count posts, what difference do postcount+ threads make unless we're attaching more significance to postcount than just a number that goes up when you do a thing?


People just tend to use post counts as a basic resource to judge whether the user is "experienced" or not since a lot of people are too lazy to read through their posts and analyse their quality. I don't agree with it, but it just happens. I can't really think of another explanation...



ultraviolet said:


> I know, that's why I asked if anyone had anything new to say and left the thread open. o_o' just thought you'd appreciate the catch-up on what people usually do say about this topic and so people don't have to repeat themselves.


Well, thanks a lot :P I just explained why I think the thread is okay to be open because there seems to be implications of its redundancy. But really, thanks for the info.


----------



## Music Dragon

yiran said:


> This is your conscious mentality; but you probably value post count somewhat, no matter how little, in your mind. You'll say you don't. Even if you don't actually count it subconsciously, there are definitely people out there who do. So a reason against Forum Games' posts counting could be housing post count ++ threads.


I'm pretty sure I don't subconsciously judge people based on their post count, because I never even look at it. I have absolutely no idea who has a high post count and who doesn't.

In any case, whether or not people subconsciously judge others based on their post count is irrelevant, because that's not what the _purpose_ of post count is. There are also people who stick their penises in vacuum cleaners, but that doesn't mean we should redesign vacuum cleaners to accommodate that fact, because that's not what vacuum cleaners are actually _for_.


----------



## yiran

Music Dragon said:


> I'm pretty sure I don't subconsciously judge people based on their post count, because I never even look at it. I have absolutely no idea who has a high post count and who doesn't.
> 
> In any case, whether or not people subconsciously judge others based on their post count is irrelevant, because that's not what the _purpose_ of post count is. There are also people who stick their penises in vacuum cleaners, but that doesn't mean we should redesign vacuum cleaners to accommodate that fact, because that's not what vacuum cleaners are actually _for_.


That comparison is very disturbing and completely unnecessary.

Then what is the real purpose of the post count? Of course it means nothing to _you_ – you don't look at it. But it definitely means something to the other people. And please don't exaggerate – you have looked at it, at least once. No matter how small, that had an effect on you (and bigger effects on others).

And no, even though you and some other people don't judge people based on their post count, many people do; it is not a portion of people to be ignored. Since you can't just go and change how they perceive this statistic, we should get around it by methods such as this.

Of course, this is my opinion, and you can disagree with it.


----------



## ultraviolet

yiran said:


> Then what is the real purpose of the post count?


Well, what do you think? You've gone through this thread without actually telling us what you think what postcount means - MD and I are saying that it counts posts and we don't really think it matters any more than that. Evidently you disagree, so tell us!


> Of course it means nothing to _you_ – you don't look at it. But it definitely means something to the other people. And please don't exaggerate – you have looked at it, at least once. No matter how small, that had an effect on you (and bigger effects on others).


please stop telling us that postcount has some sort of effect on us because I kind of think we would know that better than you would, no offence! If I could stop postcount from showing up in people's postbits, then I would. That is the extent to which I care about postcount, _believe me_. MD is the same. We know other people think differently, and we're not trying to say they shouldn't!

What do _you_ think postcount means other than just a statistic? You've implied that you don't think it's really a measure of post quality or member experience/seniority, so what is it you're actually trying to say? Do you judge people based on their postcount? Why should shorter, less-structured posts not be counted when Serious Business posts should?


----------



## Superbird

yiran said:


> People just tend to use post counts as a basic resource to judge whether the user is "experienced" or not since a lot of people are too lazy to read through their posts and analyse their quality. I don't agree with it, but it just happens. I can't really think of another explanation...


I judge people by join date and maturity, not postcount.


----------



## Music Dragon

yiran said:


> That comparison is very disturbing and completely unnecessary.


Necessity is irrelevant, and while I concede that some aspects of penis-stuffed vacuum cleaners may be disturbing, they are mostly just tragicomic. If you or a close acquaintance have been the victim of an incident involving penis-stuffed vacuum cleaners and mention of the latter caused traumatic memories to surface, I apologize most sincerely.



yiran said:


> Then what is the real purpose of the post count?


To count posts.



yiran said:


> Of course it means nothing to _you_ – you don't look at it. But it definitely means something to the other people. And please don't exaggerate – you have looked at it, at least once. No matter how small, that had an effect on you (and bigger effects on others).
> 
> And no, even though you and some other people don't judge people based on their post count, many people do; it is not a portion of people to be ignored. Since you can't just go and change how they perceive this statistic, we should get around it by methods such as this.


I couldn't disagree more. If other people judge you based on something ridiculous, your goal should be to change that attitude, not try to adapt to it. The prejudice is what's wrong, not the behaviour that fails to match the prejudice. For instance, plenty of people believe that women make poor leaders compared to men. The proper way to react to that is "that's a dumb prejudice, let's try to combat it and hope it goes away", as opposed to "many people believe this and we can't change their minds, so let's try to make the prejudice match the truth by not putting women in leadership positions".


----------



## yiran

I should have made my meaning plainer. What is the purpose of counting posts?

Everything around you has an effect on you, no matter how small. Yes, it can be negligible, and is often the case, but when I said that that is what I meant. I probably should have phrased it better (and it missed the point anyway). Sorry if it came out as me trying to know all your feelings.

No, your comparison did not trigger any memories. I was just repulsed by it. You could have easily used a non-sensitive example, and I just don't see any reason to use sensitive ones unless it's directly related to the topic.

Again, I believe your new comparison is not suitable, but for a different reason. "Prejudice" is an inherently negative word. Sexism is clearly negative (or at least portrayed as so to a great extent) in contemporary society. Judging people based on post count? Not so much. It's much more debatable, and even though I do agree that it is not a good method to judge people, it _definitely_ isn't near the severity of negativity sexism is portrayed as.

My main point is if counting posts isn't used to allow the people who wish to judge others based on post count to judge, then what is it for? 

As a side-note – Superbird, I didn't say everyone did that. I just said there is a substantial amount of people who do so. (And they're not going to come out because clearly, the quality of "judging people based on post count" isn't seen as very high here.)


----------



## Stormecho

Oh look, it's this debate. :/

Forum Games often has idle, postcount+ threads, but I do recall there being some cool games that could resurface again. Besides, it is there for fun. People have fun there, and postcount counts posts and... not anything else. I don't really care that I've reached Butterfree status with over a thousand, and I wouldn't care if I suddenly dropped 500 posts. It's just a statistic. And I do believe I did drop 500 posts or something once since the RSP was deleted or whatever.

I judge other members, when I bother to stop being a lurker, by how they behave on the forum, how mature they seem and overall attitude. Numbers have nothing to do with seniority or maturity, and don't really reflect on anyone at all. Joindate has some impact on how senior a member is and how often I see them around, but other than having me go "oh, a newbie" it doesn't really have a great effect. Postcount is just how many posts you made, and if you lurk or find yourself busy with stuff then you'll automatically have less posts than people who post all the time, but I don't see how that is anything bad at all?

[/jumbledmessofopinions]


----------



## shy ♡

yiran said:


> I should have made my meaning plainer. What is the purpose of counting posts?


There is no point. It just counts posts. Why does it have to have a point other than what it's intended for?


----------



## Music Dragon

yiran said:


> I should have made my meaning plainer. What is the purpose of counting posts?


What is the purpose of counting posts? Why did you burn that bush? What did the Rainbow Squirt say to you? What do you know about the Milkman?

It doesn't really have a purpose, just as signatures and Forum Games and custom user titles have no purpose. It's just a thing some people like and everyone else ignores. I doubt we'd go out of our way to install such a feature if it wasn't present by default.



yiran said:


> No, your comparison did not trigger any memories. I was just repulsed by it. You could have easily used a non-sensitive example, and I just don't see any reason to use sensitive ones unless it's directly related to the topic.


How are penises in vacuum cleaners sensitive, besides the fact that they've been stuck into vacuum cleaners? Please elaborate. _Elaborate_, damn it!



yiran said:


> Again, I believe your new comparison is not suitable, but for a different reason. "Prejudice" is an inherently negative word. Sexism is clearly negative (or at least portrayed as so to a great extent) in contemporary society. Judging people based on post count? Not so much. It's much more debatable, and even though I do agree that it is not a good method to judge people, it _definitely_ isn't near the severity of negativity sexism is portrayed as.


What does severity matter? Judging people based on post count is a bad thing, regardless of how bad sexism is. I mean, you could try to convince me that judgement based on post count is somehow good and justifiable, but you can't just point to some unrelated issue and say "well this is worse".



yiran said:


> My main point is if counting posts isn't used to allow the people who wish to judge others based on post count to judge, then what is it for?


Counting posts.


----------



## yiran

Stormecho said:


> Oh look, it's this debate. :/
> 
> Forum Games often has idle, postcount+ threads, but I do recall there being some cool games that could resurface again. Besides, it is there for fun. People have fun there, and postcount counts posts and... not anything else. I don't really care that I've reached Butterfree status with over a thousand, and I wouldn't care if I suddenly dropped 500 posts. It's just a statistic. And I do believe I did drop 500 posts or something once since the RSP was deleted or whatever.
> 
> I judge other members, when I bother to stop being a lurker, by how they behave on the forum, how mature they seem and overall attitude. Numbers have nothing to do with seniority or maturity, and don't really reflect on anyone at all. Joindate has some impact on how senior a member is and how often I see them around, but other than having me go "oh, a newbie" it doesn't really have a great effect. Postcount is just how many posts you made, and if you lurk or find yourself busy with stuff then you'll automatically have less posts than people who post all the time, but I don't see how that is anything bad at all?
> 
> [/jumbledmessofopinions]


I am aware that many don't care about post count. However, many others do. We should take them into consideration, because I just don't see a big makeover of their minds happening because of an argument like this.



Music Dragon said:


> What is the purpose of counting posts? Why did you burn that bush? What did the Rainbow Squirt say to you? What do you know about the Milkman?


I don't know, you tell me. Why have it if it's for no purpose, like your words imply? (Apologies if I inferred your rhetorical questions' hidden meanings wrong.)
I didn't burn any bush.
I don't know what "Rainbow Squirt" is.
I know that the Milkman is a hat in Team Fortress 2 which completes a set called Special Delivery along with Shortstop, Mad Milk, and Holy Mackerel. It boosts your health's maximum by 25 points, and is considered to be one of the better polycount sets.

I don't see how these questions are relevant. The reason the post count is there is to for people to judge. If there is no reason for it to be there, then don't put it there.



Music Dragon said:


> It doesn't really have a purpose, just as signatures and Forum Games and custom user titles have no purpose. It's just a thing some people like and everyone else ignores. I doubt we'd go out of our way to install such a feature if it wasn't present by default.


Signatures help portray personality, and possibly links to other websites. (Not just me, I've seen plenty of other people linking in their signatures.) It can also be used to conduct "social experiments". Custom User Titles also help portray personality, but that's about it. It still has an express purpose.

It's present by default. If you don't remove it, best utilise it to the best it can.



Music Dragon said:


> How are penises in vacuum cleaners sensitive, besides the fact that they've been stuck into vacuum cleaners? Please elaborate. _Elaborate_, damn it!


No offense, but how do you not get this? I understand this is not a kid-friendly forum, but why speak of the male genitals _when you could have easily used something else_? Not all environments are as liberal as yours.



Music Dragon said:


> What does severity matter? Judging people based on post count is a bad thing, regardless of how bad sexism is. I mean, you could try to convince me that judgement based on post count is somehow good and justifiable, but you can't just point to some unrelated issue and say "well this is worse".


Severity matters greatly. For instance, the reaction to a murder is different from manslaughter, or theft, or violating copyright laws. The mods aren't going to ban someone just because they judge based on post count. People's reactions towards different things are bound to be limited by the "things"'s severity.

I didn't point out the "unrelated issue" — you did, so I used your own argument against you. I believe that is a valid method of gaining the upper hand of discussion, no? 



Music Dragon said:


> Counting posts.


Counting posts is for counting posts. Wow. I really don't want to be mean or something, but that's a really stupid argument. 



pathos said:


> There is no point. It just counts posts. Why does it have to have a point other than what it's intended for?


If it has no point, why have it? Everything should have a point. Like a sharp pencil. *killed* Okay, being serious again, I don't see a reason to include something that serves no purpose, because... just why would you want something that is not beneficial in any way? Sorry for being kind of messy in my sentences, but... I don't get your logic. No offense.

-

Since a lot of you say that you don't care about the post count, I infer that the reason is that you would like to keep the Forum Games' posts as a part of the post count simply because they are posts. Is that correct? Or have I inferred wrongly?

Again, sorry if I seem offensive in this post. I just don't get why you're using redundant and illogical arguments.


----------



## Tailsy

look at how many posts i have!







check out all of my cool functional posts.


----------



## Adriane

I'm a proponent of not having post counts at all, but that's me. I wouldn't know if that's actually an option on vB or not.


----------



## opaltiger

> Counting posts is for counting posts. Wow. I really don't want to be mean or something, but that's a really stupid argument.


Some people like statistics for statistics' sake. Why should post count necessarily be _for_ something other than counting posts?


----------



## yiran

Spoiler: :D






Twilight Sparkle said:


> look at how many posts i have!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> check out all of my cool functional posts.


This post is awesome.





opaltiger said:


> Some people like statistics for statistics' sake. Why should post count necessarily be _for_ something other than counting posts?


Hmm, yes, I haven't thought of that point. But they should have made it more clear rather than just saying "counting posts is for counting posts".

Anyway, wouldn't the statistics be more... on the spot if the posts were more similar? Otherwise it wouldn't have the "technical" ring to the statistic to it.

Heh, there goes my ridiculous justifications. I still think it's better to use the post count feature for the gain of those who judge people based on post count rather for some statistical-people's amusement. But it's an opinion. Just please don't say "counting posts is for counting posts" again. I really don't like it. Thanks.


----------



## Abwayax

Why is this ever an issue? Post count isn't ever supposed to be a metric of quality. It's a measure of quantity. For some reason, forums tend to show some indicator of rank based on post count. It's meaningless. No one really cares if you're a Metapod or a Butterfree or whatever (past versions of this forum had other ranks, such as Charizard and Flygon, but we don't care if you're one of those either).

It gives some impression of seniority because that's really the only way to express experience (not importance or rank) on a forum. Forums exist to be posted on, so the more you post on a forum, the more well known you are and the more you experience that forum. The ones with the most posts are, therefore, the ones who are the most active, because that is what that particular metric is meant to gauge. It says nothing about quality of those posts, only that those posts exist.

There is a forum feature called "reputation" or "karma" that's supposed to be a metric of post quality (sort of like upvotes on reddit, if you're familiar with reddit), but it's not enabled on this forum for various reasons I don't care to research right now.


----------



## Butterfree

Ugh.

Yes, post counts can influence people, and they are something of an indicator of how active the person is or has been on the forums (whereas join dates tell you only how long it's been since they joined, with no indication of how much they've contributed). However, post count is so inherently unable to measure the _worth_ of a member's contributions that excluding forum games would be a really futile effort. It's kind of like putting a saddle on a wild lion: even if the saddle technically improves your chances of being able to ride it, the fact it's a lion still makes that impossible, so why don't you just let it be a lion and not bother with the saddle? Post count will always be unable to distinguish between a member who makes long, thought-out posts in Serious Business and a member who posts a one-liner answer to a bunch of polls in Miscellaneous Discussion or General Pokémon Discussion, so why go to lengths to let it discriminate against people who just play a bunch of forum games?

We used to have post count off in forum games, actually, several years ago. Then people made threads going "LOL BUTTERFREE IS THE SILLIEST ADMIN, DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT POST COUNT IS FOR COUNTING POSTS? ALSO REMOVE FORUM GAMES BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT AND ALSO I LOVE STOMPING ON CHILDREN'S SANDCASTLES." And I turned post count back on in forum games because I don't actually give a damn whether posts count in forum games and just wanted them to stop complaining. But the reasoning for that side of the matter is ultimately what I described above.

Also, you can make analogies involving genitalia even when they're not strictly necessary because they're often more amusing than their cleaner counterparts. I enjoy Music Dragon's strange analogies; from my previous impressions, many other members do too. One person not liking to hear about penises doesn't really counteract that, I think.


----------



## Minish

yiran said:


> I still think it's better to use the post count feature for the gain of those who judge people based on post count rather for some statistical-people's amusement. But it's an opinion.


I don't get it, why are you so intent on encouraging weird pointless judgements?? You're even calling it 'judging'!


----------



## Music Dragon

yiran said:


> I am aware that many don't care about post count. However, many others do. We should take them into consideration, because I just don't see a big makeover of their minds happening because of an argument like this.


Okay, for starters: who actually judges people based on post count? Can you point to some sort of vague evidence that this is the case?

Secondly: even if there were loads of people who judge based on post count, the proper way to handle that should be to attempt to change their minds, not adapt to their prejudices, as I explained earlier.




yiran said:


> I don't know, you tell me. Why have it if it's for no purpose, like your words imply? (Apologies if I inferred your rhetorical questions' hidden meanings wrong.)


From an objective point of view, there is no such thing as purpose. Purpose is subjective. Purpose is arbitrary. Why are you discussing this with me? Why are you on these forums? Why do these forums even exist? What _purpose_ does any of this serve? Why have fun? What is the _purpose_ of fun?



yiran said:


> I didn't burn any bush.
> I don't know what "Rainbow Squirt" is.
> I know that the Milkman is a hat in Team Fortress 2 which completes a set called Special Delivery along with Shortstop, Mad Milk, and Holy Mackerel. It boosts your health's maximum by 25 points, and is considered to be one of the better polycount sets.
> 
> I don't see how these questions are relevant.


What is the purpose of these questions?



yiran said:


> The reason the post count is there is to for people to judge. If there is no reason for it to be there, then don't put it there.


We didn't put it there, it was here when we arrived and we just didn't bother getting rid of it. And anyway, I'm still not buying your "everything must have a reason" argument.



yiran said:


> Signatures help portray personality, and possibly links to other websites. (Not just me, I've seen plenty of other people linking in their signatures.) It can also be used to conduct "social experiments". Custom User Titles also help portray personality, but that's about it. It still has an express purpose.


Post count has the express purpose of counting posts. And anyway, what is the purpose of portraying personality, linking to other websites and conducting social experiments?



yiran said:


> It's present by default. If you don't remove it, best utilise it to the best it can.


This is probably the best argument you've made so far. Nevertheless, I highly doubt post count will ever be a meaningful indicator of anything other than post count; trying to turn it into one is futile as far as I'm concerned. Your proposed change would still not make post count a valid way to judge a person's merit as a poster.



yiran said:


> No offense, but how do you not get this? I understand this is not a kid-friendly forum, but why speak of the male genitals _when you could have easily used something else_? Not all environments are as liberal as yours.


I enjoy discussing male genitals with strangers. It's what I do during spare hours, when I'm not using my vacuum cleaner to -



yiran said:


> Severity matters greatly. For instance, the reaction to a murder is different from manslaughter, or theft, or violating copyright laws. The mods aren't going to ban someone just because they judge based on post count. People's reactions towards different things are bound to be limited by the "things"'s severity.


Murder is worse than violating copyright laws, but is that a justification for breaking copyright laws? If I commit a crime, can I just say "well it could have been a _worse_ crime" and somehow use that as an excuse? Obviously not. In the same way, judging a person based on their post count is not a good thing, regardless of how it compares to sexism or manslaughter.



yiran said:


> I didn't point out the "unrelated issue" — you did, so I used your own argument against you. I believe that is a valid method of gaining the upper hand of discussion, no?


I used sexism as an example to illustrate my point; it wasn't an inherent part of the argument. I could just as easily have used an example involving male genitals and vacuum cleaners, but I decided against it because I thought it would upset you. My actual argument is simply this: in the face of prejudice, the proper reaction is not to accept that prejudice as set in stone and then try to adapt reality to it, but rather to combat it.

In any case, your counter-argument still isn't valid for reasons explained above; sexism is bad, but that doesn't make other things good. How sexism compares to the issue at hand is completely irrelevant. I could just as easily say that first-world sexism is a minor issue compared to human rights violations in Syria, but does that somehow make sexism acceptable?



yiran said:


> Counting posts is for counting posts. Wow. I really don't want to be mean or something, but that's a really stupid argument.


Give me an example of something that has a meaningful purpose, then.



yiran said:


> If it has no point, why have it? Everything should have a point. Like a sharp pencil. *killed* Okay, being serious again, I don't see a reason to include something that serves no purpose, because... just why would you want something that is not beneficial in any way? Sorry for being kind of messy in my sentences, but... I don't get your logic. No offense.


Some people enjoy being able to count the number of posts they've made. That's good enough. What is it with you and _points_, anyway? What kind of higher purpose is it that you believe in? There is no _point_ in having fun or loving other people or being alive or posting on the internet, but we do it anyway because screw points, and screw vacuum cleaners.



yiran said:


> Since a lot of you say that you don't care about the post count, I infer that the reason is that you would like to keep the Forum Games' posts as a part of the post count simply because they are posts. Is that correct? Or have I inferred wrongly?


It's already there, some people enjoy it, and it causes no harm.



yiran said:


> Again, sorry if I seem offensive in this post. I just don't get why you're using redundant and illogical arguments.


What is the _purpose_ of logical arguments?


----------



## Tailsy

Adrian Malacoda said:


> There is a forum feature called "reputation" or "karma" that's supposed to be a metric of post quality (sort of like upvotes on reddit, if you're familiar with reddit), but it's not enabled on this forum for various reasons I don't care to research right now.


you didn't... just... bring up the reputation scheme again... did you...?







_what have you done to us!!! if you bring reputation up again, terrible things will happen!!!!_


----------



## Zora of Termina

Polymetric Sesquialtera said:


> I remember I used to have the biggest postcount on tr'srockin! until someone came in and posted a lot more than me
> 
> I promptly hated them for it for no real reason :D
> 
> (and then everyone started overtaking me cause they all rp'd like crazy but that's different)


I um...
Um.

I.
But- I-
I- I didn't-
What are you talking about I never did anything like-

.../shame corner


----------



## Zhorken

The last time I remember one of these threads cropping up, I think I was still in the "Forum Games should go" squad, but I've pretty much settled down from my angry-at-everything hipster-nerd phase, and, hey, turns out Butterfree's making a lot of sense.  Sure, I think Forum Games is a bunch of noise, personally, but some people are having fun, and I remember having lots of fun there when I was thirteen–fourteen, so I can just hide it and move on.

On postcount counting posts, I do like having that statistic (plus the average posts per day) and it's not just for the pure thrill of numbers or anything.  I like seeing how often someone... posts.  Uh.  How often someone, like, actually takes part in the forums, I guess, how active they are, how frequent a thing it is in their lives.  Separate from what they actually tend to post, especially since that's way more complicated.


----------



## Zero Moment

Music Dragon said:


> Okay, for starters: who actually judges people based on post count?


*raises hand*


----------



## Autumn

Zora of Termina said:


> I um...
> Um.
> 
> I.
> But- I-
> I- I didn't-
> What are you talking about I never did anything like-
> 
> .../shame corner


The person who i unnecessarily hated for it wasn't you, it was Darkmewham2. (Although you and a ton of others were among the people who surpassed my count later on.)



Zero Moment said:


> *raises hand*


How so and _why?_


----------



## Music Dragon

Zero Moment said:


> *raises hand*


What's your opinion on palm reading?


----------



## Zero Moment

Polymetric Sesquialtera said:


> How so and _why?_


Well, the first thing I look at when I see an unfamiliar user is the postcount and joindate. If I see a high postcount (and the joindate doesn't contradict this) I think "oh, someone must have changed their username." If I see a high postcount and a relatively recent joindate, I think "oh it's one of those people who only post in the FG and nowhere else."
People with low joindates and postcounts are new, higher joindates and low postcounts are lurkers/people who're gone a lot.

The above also applies to when I join forums (which is pretty much never btw)


----------



## Music Dragon

Zero Moment said:


> Well, the first thing I look at when I see an unfamiliar user is the postcount and joindate. If I see a high postcount (and the joindate doesn't contradict this) I think "oh, someone must have changed their username." If I see a high postcount and a relatively recent joindate, I think "oh it's one of those people who only post in the FG and nowhere else."
> People with low joindates and postcounts are new, higher joindates and low postcounts are lurkers/people who're gone a lot.
> 
> The above also applies to when I join forums (which is pretty much never btw)


It seems to me you're not really judging the expected quality of anyone's posts by their post count.


----------



## Phantom

Newbies care about post count.

So did I... when I was a newbie.  I was a newbie back when FG and Insanity both didn't count.  But I've seen it when someone brags about having sooo many posts.... Seriously I've seen it here where someone uses their post count as a sort of badge of honor to say "I'm better than you".

I still avoid FG. I just think its silly.

But I still think that the count should just be off in those categories again. Sure it doesn't guarantee long thought out posts, but it has a better chance than posting a three word post.  

I am on the border of just turn the count off and I don't give a damn.


If you really want to be judged.... I do like the idea of rep. *ducks*


----------



## Tailsy

Phantom said:


> If you really want to be judged.... I do like the idea of rep. *ducks*









SCREAMS


----------



## Zero Moment

Music Dragon said:


> It seems to me you're not really judging the expected quality of anyone's posts by their post count.


Not really?


----------



## sovram

Zero Moment said:


> Not really?


That was kind of the issue.


----------



## surskitty

I'd like post counts to remain accurate.


----------



## Mai

Unless I'm missing something crucial, being able to decide what you see in someone's postcount sounds like a decent solution to the problem. The actual _postcount_ would remain the default option (as in the exact number of posts that you actually have, you know), but the other people who really hate forum games/the coughing cupboard/ASB/whatever could just turn off that forum from postcount. Meanwhile, the people who don't care about postcount/just want it to be an accurate measurement of posts could keep it as it is.

I'd imagine it would work similarly to hiding a forum (if hiding a forum already does that... sorry, I don't hide any of the boards here).

If this is impossible or doesn't make sense or something, sorry again; I just figured it would be a way to end all the threads that have come up about forum games.


----------



## 1. Luftballon

pretty sure postcounts are usually updated every time a post is made rather than actually being counted every time -- that would be inefficient.


----------



## ultraviolet

yiran said:


> Counting posts is for counting posts. Wow. I really don't want to be mean or something, but that's a really stupid argument.


wait, what? Why is it a stupid argument? That's what postcount _actually does_. It's a number that counts how many posts you've made. That's why it's called 'postcount'. Just because you seem to attach significance to counting posts, it doesn't mean other people do. 



> I still think it's better to use the post count feature for the gain of  those who judge people based on post count rather for some  statistical-people's amusement. But it's an opinion. Just please don't  say "counting posts is for counting posts" again. I really don't like  it. Thanks.


but you've said before that you don't really agree with this mindset. ??? I don't really get how _your _justification for postcount is that other people judge members based on it when you personally don't think that's a very good thing to do. Besides, I'm pretty sure members are more likely to be judged by their signatures/avatars/usertitles etc., if not their posts.

and yet, mysteriously you're still asking what postcount means and what the purpose is of counting posts without really giving your opinion. mostly people are saying that it doesn't inherently mean anything, but you seem to disagree. What do _you_ think it means? and don't start off with 'well other people ...'; I am asking you what significance postcount has to you, because you seem to be dodging this question.


----------



## 1. Luftballon

postcount counts posts. it is a post-count, get it? counting posts is what it's for.

it's not a notinforumgamespostcount. it's not a meaningfulpostcount. it's a postcount. it counts posts. that is, it is what it is. it is not, notably, something it isn't.

thing a is thing a is logically tautological, perhaps. if thing a were allowed to be thing a, it would not be particularly notable, since thing a is expected to be thing a. but if one means thing b when one says thing a, where thing b is not necessarily thing a, then that is at least slightly annoying.

"Counting posts is for counting posts" means that counting posts is intended to count posts.


----------



## yiran

Spoiler: Long responses






Adrian Malacoda said:


> Why is this ever an issue? Post count isn't ever supposed to be a metric of quality. It's a measure of quantity. For some reason, forums tend to show some indicator of rank based on post count. It's meaningless. No one really cares if you're a Metapod or a Butterfree or whatever (past versions of this forum had other ranks, such as Charizard and Flygon, but we don't care if you're one of those either).


Don't speak for other people. You don't care. Others do. (For the record, I don't care either. But I know I'm subtly influenced by it and I'm also speaking up for those who do care because I know they'll be bashed by those who don't.)



Adrian Malacoda said:


> It gives some impression of seniority because that's really the only way to express experience (not importance or rank) on a forum. Forums exist to be posted on, so the more you post on a forum, the more well known you are and the more you experience that forum. The ones with the most posts are, therefore, the ones who are the most active, because that is what that particular metric is meant to gauge. It says nothing about quality of those posts, only that those posts exist.


Your opinion. Others' differ.



Adrian Malacoda said:


> There is a forum feature called "reputation" or "karma" that's supposed to be a metric of post quality (sort of like upvotes on reddit, if you're familiar with reddit), but it's not enabled on this forum for various reasons I don't care to research right now.


No idea what that is, and doesn't sound like it's worth the effort.



Butterfree said:


> Ugh.


Well, sorry for inciting another "Forum Games" incident. =/



Butterfree said:


> Yes, post counts can influence people, and they are something of an indicator of how active the person is or has been on the forums (whereas join dates tell you only how long it's been since they joined, with no indication of how much they've contributed). However, post count is so inherently unable to measure the _worth_ of a member's contributions that excluding forum games would be a really futile effort. It's kind of like putting a saddle on a wild lion: even if the saddle technically improves your chances of being able to ride it, the fact it's a lion still makes that impossible, so why don't you just let it be a lion and not bother with the saddle? Post count will always be unable to distinguish between a member who makes long, thought-out posts in Serious Business and a member who posts a one-liner answer to a bunch of polls in Miscellaneous Discussion or General Pokémon Discussion, so why go to lengths to let it discriminate against people who just play a bunch of forum games?


For the part about post counts not being a good measure; I agree with you, others don't. Again, it's an opinion.

For the other part; I am assuming the discrimination against Forum Games players is that people think they are trying to earn posts to earn fame/respect/whatever. Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, if that's the case, you can't just magically remove the discrimination; you can try and weaken it, because the people who judge Forum Game posters will feel less hostile towards the Forum Game posters if Forum Games has its posts discounted from the post count since the Forum Games poster's perceived goal (from the discriminators) isn't reached.

Did I make sense there?



Butterfree said:


> We used to have post count off in forum games, actually, several years ago. Then people made threads going "LOL BUTTERFREE IS THE SILLIEST ADMIN, DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT POST COUNT IS FOR COUNTING POSTS? ALSO REMOVE FORUM GAMES BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT AND ALSO I LOVE STOMPING ON CHILDREN'S SANDCASTLES." And I turned post count back on in forum games because I don't actually give a damn whether posts count in forum games and just wanted them to stop complaining. But the reasoning for that side of the matter is ultimately what I described above.


I personally believe that it is the best to take the correct course of action rather than the action that stops people complaining. But you do have a lot on your hands, so I guess it's an acceptable measure. Still, it is obvious the people are complaining aren't subject to reasoning if they _actually_ spoke about sandcastles and stuff.

As for post count counting posts; well, isn't the signature a "signature"? Why don't we ban links to other sites! That's not part of a signature at all!

Point is, things don't have to follow their name in order to be effective and have a purpose.



Butterfree said:


> Also, you can make analogies involving genitalia even when they're not strictly necessary because they're often more amusing than their cleaner counterparts. I enjoy Music Dragon's strange analogies; from my previous impressions, many other members do too. One person not liking to hear about penises doesn't really counteract that, I think.


Well, I don't enjoy it, so I request to not to analogies involving genitalia. He doesn't have to comply to my request, but I'd appreciate it more if he did.

And some whining here; I don't really have the time for amusements when I'm trying to answer a question I deem absurd.



Cirrus said:


> I don't get it, why are you so intent on encouraging weird pointless judgements?? You're even calling it 'judging'!


Ugh, the "judging" is not as bad as you make it out to be. And as to why I'm arguing for something I don't support, read my first response.



Music Dragon said:


> Okay, for starters: who actually judges people based on post count? Can you point to some sort of vague evidence that this is the case?
> 
> Secondly: even if there were loads of people who judge based on post count, the proper way to handle that should be to attempt to change their minds, not adapt to their prejudices, as I explained earlier.


Polymetric Sesquialtera's early post clearly demonstrates that the post count is of some, if not a lot of, positive value. Other people have responded as well.

Go ahead and attempt to change their minds then. I don't think you will succeed. If you do, I won't mind having posts in Forum Games counting. But chances are you won't. The problem is the phrase "adapting to prejudices" is just too negative; judging people based on post count is not a big deal.



Music Dragon said:


> From an objective point of view, there is no such thing as purpose. Purpose is subjective. Purpose is arbitrary. Why are you discussing this with me? Why are you on these forums? Why do these forums even exist? What _purpose_ does any of this serve? Why have fun? What is the _purpose_ of fun?


We're human. We have emotions. We are subjective. Our methods should be subjective. If you are so keen on being objective, why don't you just do nothing since nothing has purposes? And you're wrong, because even objectively things have purpose. For instance, humans eat food, and the purpose of eating food is to stay alive. That's an objective sentence that demonstrates the purpose of something.



Music Dragon said:


> What is the purpose of these questions?


I don't know. You asked them. Why did you ask them? Please tell me.



Music Dragon said:


> We didn't put it there, it was here when we arrived and we just didn't bother getting rid of it. And anyway, I'm still not buying your "everything must have a reason" argument.


If a "thing" doesn't have a reason, why have it? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm expecting an answer.



Music Dragon said:


> Post count has the express purpose of counting posts. And anyway, what is the purpose of portraying personality, linking to other websites and conducting social experiments?


...What do you think? This is getting ridiculous. Fine, linking to websites like DragCave will ensure the users' dragons survive (or something, I'm not familiar with the site) and therefore they can derive mental satisfaction.

I'm seriously considering ignoring your posts altogether. I really don't mean any offense, but these questions seem absurd to me.



Music Dragon said:


> This is probably the best argument you've made so far. Nevertheless, I highly doubt post count will ever be a meaningful indicator of anything other than post count; trying to turn it into one is futile as far as I'm concerned. Your proposed change would still not make post count a valid way to judge a person's merit as a poster.


It's not futile; there are people who agree with me.

And it would not to you; it would to some people. Otherwise they wouldn't use it. Yes, other people matter.



Music Dragon said:


> I enjoy discussing male genitals with strangers. It's what I do during spare hours, when I'm not using my vacuum cleaner to -


Okay, I just don't like it. I request that you do not use such analogies when discussing anything with me, unless it is directly related. Thank you.



Music Dragon said:


> Murder is worse than violating copyright laws, but is that a justification for breaking copyright laws? If I commit a crime, can I just say "well it could have been a _worse_ crime" and somehow use that as an excuse? Obviously not. In the same way, judging a person based on their post count is not a good thing, regardless of how it compares to sexism or manslaughter.


Judging someone based on post count is far less serious than violating copyright laws. There will not be a rule of any sort that restricts judging people based on post count (well, from my deduction that the forum owners are competent enough to avoid such things). *Judging someone based on post count is not as bad as you make it out to be. And since you cannot remove the behaviour, you might as well adapt to it.*

I really needed to emphasise that.



Music Dragon said:


> I used sexism as an example to illustrate my point; it wasn't an inherent part of the argument. I could just as easily have used an example involving male genitals and vacuum cleaners, but I decided against it because I thought it would upset you. My actual argument is simply this: in the face of prejudice, the proper reaction is not to accept that prejudice as set in stone and then try to adapt reality to it, but rather to combat it.


It still was a part of the argument and if you are to use it I should be able to too. It is very unfair if you are allowed to point out sexism when I am not.

Blah, we're repeating ourselves. Combat it. If unsuccessful, adapt to it, since it's not remotely a serious issue.



Music Dragon said:


> In any case, your counter-argument still isn't valid for reasons explained above; sexism is bad, but that doesn't make other things good. How sexism compares to the issue at hand is completely irrelevant. I could just as easily say that first-world sexism is a minor issue compared to human rights violations in Syria, but does that somehow make sexism acceptable?


No. This is entirely of a different magnitude. Is judging people based on post count causing any problems? Repeating myself again. Ugh.



Music Dragon said:


> Give me an example of something that has a meaningful purpose, then.


Look at my response which involves eating food.

And while "counting posts is for counting posts" is _true_, it makes a terrible argument because anyone with basic grasp of the English language can infer that.



Music Dragon said:


> Some people enjoy being able to count the number of posts they've made. That's good enough. What is it with you and _points_, anyway? What kind of higher purpose is it that you believe in? There is no _point_ in having fun or loving other people or being alive or posting on the internet, but we do it anyway because screw points, and screw vacuum cleaners.


Everything has a point. You just said that my best argument was about utilising things that aren't utilised properly. That was to make them have a point.

What is with _you_ and your insistence on pointless things? I don't get why you want pointless things. What benefit do you get? Why have things when they don't have a point?



Music Dragon said:


> It's already there, some people enjoy it, and it causes no harm.


We could make it cause more good than it is currently.



Music Dragon said:


> What is the _purpose_ of logical arguments?


... This is just so frustrating because you think things that have no points should be kept, even if they have no points. And... why are you asking what is the purpose of logical arguments? Will you have a problem if I start presenting you with illogical arguments? Because I will do that exclusively to you from now on in this thread if you don't think logical arguments have a purpose.

I like debating, though. So that kind of balances the frustration out.



Zhorken said:


> The last time I remember one of these threads cropping up, I think I was still in the "Forum Games should go" squad, but I've pretty much settled down from my angry-at-everything hipster-nerd phase, and, hey, turns out Butterfree's making a lot of sense.  Sure, I think Forum Games is a bunch of noise, personally, but some people are having fun, and I remember having lots of fun there when I was thirteen–fourteen, so I can just hide it and move on.


I do agree Butterfree's post makes sense (and most others), but I still think my posts make more sense. (Otherwise I wouldn't be using up two hours to make this post in favour of removing Forum Games' post count, duh.) Music Dragon's views make no sense to me, however. Just me being me.



Zhorken said:


> On postcount counting posts, I do like having that statistic (plus the average posts per day) and it's not just for the pure thrill of numbers or anything.  I like seeing how often someone... posts.  Uh.  How often someone, like, actually takes part in the forums, I guess, how active they are, how frequent a thing it is in their lives.  Separate from what they actually tend to post, especially since that's way more complicated.


Hmm... wouldn't it be a more accurate measure of how much someone posts when the type of posts is restricted to a more narrow range?



Music Dragon said:


> What's your opinion on palm reading?


This is the problem I have with your posts. You're clearly intelligent enough to know that Zero Moment meant he judges people based on post count, but for whatever reason, you ignore it. 



Music Dragon said:


> It seems to me you're not really judging the expected quality of anyone's posts by their post count.


Does it matter? It's still judging people, even if it's not their quality of post but what type of people they are (forum-wise).



Mai said:


> Unless I'm missing something crucial, being able to decide what you see in someone's postcount sounds like a decent solution to the problem. The actual _postcount_ would remain the default option (as in the exact number of posts that you actually have, you know), but the other people who really hate forum games/the coughing cupboard/ASB/whatever could just turn off that forum from postcount. Meanwhile, the people who don't care about postcount/just want it to be an accurate measurement of posts could keep it as it is.
> 
> I'd imagine it would work similarly to hiding a forum (if hiding a forum already does that... sorry, I don't hide any of the boards here).
> 
> If this is impossible or doesn't make sense or something, sorry again; I just figured it would be a way to end all the threads that have come up about forum games.


Hey, that is actually quite a good idea. That ways we can suit everyone's taste. I think there might be technical problems with it, though...



ultraviolet said:


> wait, what? Why is it a stupid argument? That's what postcount _actually does_. It's a number that counts how many posts you've made. That's why it's called 'postcount'. Just because you seem to attach significance to counting posts, it doesn't mean other people do.


Hm, just wondering, why don't you capitalise the first letter of paragraphs?

And yes, I don't deny that that is what it actually does. My point is that it's so blatantly obvious it doesn't need stating. And even though it does answer my question I'm sure he is intelligent enough to know I wasn't looking for that. (That or our values are way too different to have a proper argument.)



ultraviolet said:


> but you've said before that you don't really agree with this mindset. ??? I don't really get how _your _justification for postcount is that other people judge members based on it when you personally don't think that's a very good thing to do. Besides, I'm pretty sure members are more likely to be judged by their signatures/avatars/usertitles etc., if not their posts.


You're right; I don't agree with judging people based on post count. However, I subconsciously do it, and I believe many people subconsciously do it without meaning to. Read my first reply as to why I'm trying to argue for a side I'm not fully on.

Well, as Zero Moment says, post count is quite important in his "judging system", and I'm sure it would be in others. It is true that a picture or even words would mean more than a number, but the number still has quite a significant impact on people's minds.



ultraviolet said:


> and yet, mysteriously you're still asking what postcount means and what the purpose is of counting posts without really giving your opinion. mostly people are saying that it doesn't inherently mean anything, but you seem to disagree. What do _you_ think it means? and don't start off with 'well other people ...'; I am asking you what significance postcount has to you, because you seem to be dodging this question.


I apologise for not giving my opinion earlier. I believe I have clarified it in my post.

Well other people... *slapped* Okay, what post count means to me as an individual. I can judge how much the person posts, and coupled with other factors I can decide how active he/she is. But with Forum Games' posts counting it becomes much more inaccurate a users with 2000 posts could either be a person who posts in Forum Games a lot, or a consistent participant in discussions. And I also subtly think that people with more posts are more mature, but I don't want to. It's reflexive, though, so I don't really have a choice.

I didn't want to dodge the question; just seems like I never got around to physically answering it.

I'm sensing you're one of the people I might get frustrated with as well, but I'm not really certain. Different values again -.- (because if I saw someone criticising someone else for saying "x is x" I'd be on their side, at least most of the time).



sreservoir said:


> postcount counts posts. it is a post-count, get it? counting posts is what it's for.


And you're on the people-I-might-get-frustrated-at list as well. I just don't agree with the mentality that something should be there if t doesn't serve a purpose.



sreservoir said:


> it's not a notinforumgamespostcount. it's not a meaningfulpostcount. it's a postcount. it counts posts. that is, it is what it is. it is not, notably, something it isn't.


I've said why names aren't everything. Here, I'm copying from my own post:

_As for post count counting posts; well, isn't the signature a "signature"? Why don't we ban links to other sites! That's not part of a signature at all!

Point is, things don't have to follow their name in order to be effective and have a purpose._



sreservoir said:


> thing a is thing a is logically tautological, perhaps. if thing a were allowed to be thing a, it would not be particularly notable, since thing a is expected to be thing a. but if one means thing b when one says thing a, where thing b is not necessarily thing a, then that is at least slightly annoying.


I checked the dictionary for tautological, and I'm pretty sure of what it means. But still, it just seems like a stupid argument which was used since he had no other explanation to give. Well, it seems like that to me.



sreservoir said:


> "Counting posts is for counting posts" means that counting posts is intended to count posts.


That statement is correct. That does not mean that statement makes a good argument.



Any possible insults at any individual are unintended, and if you feel offended please address what caused it and I will edit it and attempt to avoid it in the future.

I am also not going to respond to everyone that is somewhat opposing me in the future, because many people's posts makes me repeat myself and I need more time to do other stuff.

EDIT: Right after I posted this the forum went down for 3 hours. Sorry x:


----------



## Butterfree

> Hmm... wouldn't it be a more accurate measure of how much someone posts when the type of posts is restricted to a more narrow range?


See, this is the part of your argument that really doesn't make sense to me. People who post a lot in Forum Games _are_ posting a lot. They _are_ very active, and they _are_ probably fairly well-known on the forums, at least among the people who frequent the same categories they do. For every measure you can sensibly deduce from post count (of which length or thoughtfulness of posts is not one and never will be), people who post a lot in Forum Games genuinely do rank highly. You would get an _inaccurate_ picture of how active and prominent a member is overall if posts in Forum Games were excluded. And because post count has exactly nothing to do with the quality of your posts even outside of Forum Games, post count could never become a remotely accurate way to gauge that even if we did exclude Forum Games. On the whole, snap judgements based on post counts are likely more accurate if Forum Games are included, because then at least the measure of activity and prominence are correct, even if the ludicrously inaccurate measure of post quality they shouldn't be deducing from there anyway become ever so slightly more ludicrously inaccurate.



> I personally believe that it is the best to take the correct course of action rather than the action that stops people complaining. But you do have a lot on your hands, so I guess it's an acceptable measure.


The thing is I don't think there _is_ a "correct course of action" inherent to the matter. The whole issue is silly and I don't see why anyone really cares exactly what post count is counting, except in that vague kind of "Hey, I like statistics for statistics' sake" way. The correct course of action when there isn't a definitive right thing to do is whatever makes the largest number of people happy. Hence, doing whatever people complain less about.

I actually find pretty striking here that you care so much. Why _is_ it so vastly important to you that the inevitably inaccurate snap judgements people make about other people shouldn't include posts in Forum Games that you'll persist in arguing it even in the face of most people including the administrator disagreeing? If this were a genuine moral issue and you were standing up for something you perceive as _the right thing_, yeah, you should definitely not let it deter you no matter who disagrees, but a suggestion as trivial as "let's not include this forum in the post count" has no reason to inspire that kind of passion, especially when you agree that post count is never going to be a decent measure of post quality and have yourself argued in response to Music Dragon that people judging each other based on post count isn't a big deal. It makes no sense for you to be arguing this so fiercely purely on the principle you claim to be defending (making premature subconscious inherently inaccurate snap judgements about people's post thoughtfulness by other people who have yet to get to know them at all maybe a teensy-weensy bit more accurate on a rough average).

What it sounds like to me, and I'm sorry to be jumping to conclusions about you but you're making it difficult not to, is that you yourself are just feeling kind of insecure and intimidated as a new member, want to gain some respect on the forums, and feel like when other people are racking up enormous post counts through posting in Forum Games, people are unfairly going to pay more attention to them than to you even though you've been expending far more effort making good posts than them.

And yeah, I'm sure many people have felt like that - I've felt like that when registering on forums when I was fourteen or fifteen - but the thing is that people judge you incorrectly on irrelevant features every day, and that's just something you have to deal with. People may judge you if your post count is low, but they may also judge you if you don't have an avatar, or based on your username or signature, or the fact you use the phrase "sugar high" in your signature, or the fact you have a tumblr. And those judgements can be totally inaccurate. But when people _read_ your posts and see you around in discussions, they'll see for themselves how much thought you put into your posts. You don't need to be so concerned with those initial snap judgements people might make; instead, focus on how you come across when people start to form an actual impression of who you are.

Making long, well-thought-out posts actually puts you at a disadvantage postcount-wise, because in the time that it takes you to write one post, somebody else could have made ten insignificant posts in random polls in Miscellaneous or Insanity - and that fact will remain even if we exclude Forum Games from the post count. Some people may try to judge post quality from post count anyway, _but that judgement is never going to be correct no matter what forums we choose to exclude_. If you make well-thought-out posts, people are going to see that you make well-thought-out posts, even if your post count is low.



> For the other part; I am assuming the discrimination against Forum Games players is that people think they are trying to earn posts to earn fame/respect/whatever. Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, if that's the case, you can't just magically remove the discrimination; you can try and weaken it, because the people who judge Forum Game posters will feel less hostile towards the Forum Game posters if Forum Games has its posts discounted from the post count since the Forum Games poster's perceived goal (from the discriminators) isn't reached.
> 
> Did I make sense there?


I think you misunderstood me; I wasn't talking about people being hostile towards people who post in Forum Games. I was asking what the point of having post count discriminate against posts in forum games (by not counting them) is, given post count can't discriminate between useful, high-quality posts and spammy one-liners anywhere else anyway. Hence the lion analogy: why bother trying to put a saddle on the lion when you're not going to be able to ride it either way?



> Still, it is obvious the people are complaining aren't subject to reasoning if they actually spoke about sandcastles and stuff.


That was a fanciful exaggeration expressing my annoyance with people thinking they have a right to destroy something other people enjoy (whether it's Forum Games or sandcastles) just because they themselves don't care for it.


----------



## ultraviolet

yiran said:


> Don't speak for other people. You don't care. Others do. (For the record, I don't care either. But I know I'm subtly influenced by it and I'm also speaking up for those who do care because I know they'll be bashed by those who don't.)


Who exactly are you talking about, and why would they be bashed for it? Nobody is flaming anybody (and if they were, they'd be told off for it). Yes, people probably have different ideas. They can speak up if they want to. There is zero point arguing for something that you're not actually invested in yourself. It's not as though anybody is being oppressed that you need to stick up for to maintain a fair discussion. 



> Your opinion. Others' differ.


and please, please stop responding to people with 'that's just your opinion' as though it invalidates what they're saying. _everything_ that has been said here is someone's opinion, including everything you've said. That's kind of a given. If someone says 'well postcount is this!' then they're giving their opinion, whether they add 'in my opinion' or not.



> Hm, just wondering, why don't you capitalise the first letter of paragraphs?


because I find capitalisation arbitrary for the most part but my university career demands that I write long essays where I have to capitalise things; this somehow results in paragraphs on this forum where the beginnings of sentences are more or less capitalised at random. it's a habit I'm not particularly pleased with, but as I'm pretty lazy and I don't think it hinders communication, I usually just leave them.



> And yes, I don't deny that that is what it actually does. My point is that it's so blatantly obvious it doesn't need stating. And even though it does answer my question I'm sure he is intelligent enough to know I wasn't looking for that. (That or our values are way too different to have a proper argument.)


Well, you asked what counting posts meant to him, and all it means to him is a statistic that doesn't mean anything. There's really nothing more to be inferred from it. That doesn't make what he's saying invalid. 


> You're right; I don't agree with judging people based on post count. However, I subconsciously do it, and I believe many people subconsciously do it without meaning to. [...] Well, as Zero Moment says, post count is quite important in his "judging system", and I'm sure it would be in others. It is true that a picture or even words would mean more than a number, but the number still has quite a significant impact on people's minds.


You keep going on how postcount has a significant relationship with how people perceive other members even when they expressedly don't care about postcount. What are you basing this on? I'm not denying that people judge by postcount, but you can't keep saying that it "has quite a significant impact on people's minds." You don't know that it does, and you can't speak for 'people' so generally like that. Yes, we've established that people do care about postcount, and you do even though you'd rather not - but I kind of resent being told that postcount has this big, vague effect on me when I forgot it existed until I viewed this thread. You don't have anything to back this up other than your own experiences, which are going to be different from everyone else's.



> I'm sensing you're one of the people I might get frustrated with as well, but I'm not really certain. Different values again -.- (because if I saw someone criticising someone else for saying "x is x" I'd be on their side, at least most of the time).


but I don't really get what you're upset with, exactly. postcount means nothing to me. it counts posts. what I'm saying is probably tautological, but it illustrates what little significance I place on postcount.


----------



## Spoon

Do we really need age counts of users? What purpose do they really serve? Do they really count member's actual age or could they be manipulated? Do we really need to know? How about exclamation point counts, to show how excited members are about their posts? :D

 Post count here, counts posts. Post count here doesn't count quality posts. And just by ignoring posts on certain forums doesn't make those posts not quality or vice versa. It can be used to get an idea of how active a member is or if they've had a dip in activity. Adding clauses to what makes a post beyond it being a post seems silly. Or getting rid of it entirely seems silly, too. I don't really care, but ah well.


----------



## Aisling

This is only tangentially related, but on another forum I've been on for a short time (personalitycafe for the curious), members had the option to "thank" a post that made a really good point, was relevant to them or the topic, or that they appreciated for some reason or another. Below a post that had been thanked was a list of members who thanked it. The number of thanked posts a person had was listed below their post count.

If people really care about how many "meaningful" posts people make, would it be possible to implement something like that?

_I'm_ not really sure how successful it would be, and I have a feeling that it might just go down the path that reputation did so many years ago, but since we always retread the same ground with the topic of post count, I thought I'd throw another option out there. It wasn't even thought about on personalitycafe, people just did it, then again I think everybody on there was a lot older and I never, ever saw a thread about post count, _ever_

edit: *big ol bold text to make sure people actually see this amongst the overblown argument* (that I swear has happened five times before why are we still on it)


----------



## Music Dragon

yiran said:


> Polymetric Sesquialtera's early post clearly demonstrates that the post count is of some, if not a lot of, positive value. Other people have responded as well.


Yeah, some people like post count, I don't dispute that. But few people seem to judge post quality based on post count, and those that do seem aware that it's not a particularly good thing to do. In any case, the presence of such attitudes is no reason to accommodate them.



yiran said:


> Go ahead and attempt to change their minds then. I don't think you will succeed. If you do, I won't mind having posts in Forum Games counting. But chances are you won't. The problem is the phrase "adapting to prejudices" is just too negative; judging people based on post count is not a big deal.


What do you mean, it's too negative? "Judging post quality based on post count is not as bad as [insert other issue here]" is not a valid argument. How a particular issue compares in severity to another issue isn't really relevant here. I'm perfectly aware that this is a minor issue compared to sexism, but does that make it a good thing, something we should be defending and promoting?

You wouldn't defend sexism on the grounds that "you likely won't be able to change everyone's minds", so by the same reasoning, you also shouldn't be defending this particular prejudice; the exact same logic applies, regardless of how severe the issue in question is. Both in the case of sexism and the case of judging post quality based on post count, you're making fairly baseless assumptions about other people's qualities; the extent to which this causes actual harm is unimportant, because the nature of the behavior is the same.

And if it's not a big deal, why are you proposing a change?



yiran said:


> We're human. We have emotions. We are subjective. Our methods should be subjective. If you are so keen on being objective, why don't you just do nothing since nothing has purposes?


No, I'm trying to say the exact opposite; we should _not_ try to be objective, precisely _because_ we're human and have emotions and nothing really has purpose anyway; and, therefore, it doesn't matter if post count has a purpose or not, because we're humans and we don't need a good reason to do things. We do things because we enjoy them, and we don't have to explain why we enjoy things or what the purpose of enjoying things is. If people want to keep track of the number of posts they've made, there's no harm in letting them. Post count doesn't have to serve a purpose, it can just be something people like; that's all the justification needed.



yiran said:


> And you're wrong, because even objectively things have purpose. For instance, humans eat food, and the purpose of eating food is to stay alive. That's an objective sentence that demonstrates the purpose of something.


Right, but what, then, is the purpose of staying alive? The meaningfulness of eating is dependent on the meaningfulness of staying alive. My point is that ultimately, you can just say "but why, what is the meaning of that?" to literally _anything_; at some point you have to just stop and say, "I arbitrarily define this to be meaningful, for no reason at all". Ultimately you don't need any justifications or reasons or purposes; humans do things because they like doing them, and you can't explain what the _purpose_ of doing what we like is - it's just what we do.



yiran said:


> I don't know. You asked them. Why did you ask them? Please tell me.


I'm trying to figure out your post count.



yiran said:


> If a "thing" doesn't have a reason, why have it? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm expecting an answer.


Because that's what we humans do! We have things not because there's a logical reason for having them, but because humans like having certain things. What purpose do cars serve? Getting from one place to another conveniently, sure, but what's the purpose of transportation then? In the end, there is no logical reason for us to do things or live or exist; we do what we do because we are governed by feelings more than by reason.



yiran said:


> ...What do you think? This is getting ridiculous. Fine, linking to websites like DragCave will ensure the users' dragons survive (or something, I'm not familiar with the site) and therefore they can derive mental satisfaction.


Right, but what is the purpose of mental satisfaction? There is none, but we look for it anyway! You see where I'm going with this? Post count needs no purpose and it doesn't need to be useful, because what is "useful" anyway? Some people enjoy having it and it doesn't intrude upon anyone else; that's good enough.



yiran said:


> I'm seriously considering ignoring your posts altogether. I really don't mean any offense, but these questions seem absurd to me.


Running from the Absurd is escapism! Only in facing the Absurd and challenging it while simultaneously accepting it as impossible to defeat can one find true contentment! Sisyphus must be happy. _Happy_, damn it! _Happy!_



yiran said:


> It's not futile; there are people who agree with me.


... There are people who agree with you that post count could be turned into a useful measure of post quality? Even if that were true, didn't you yourself say that you disagreed with that?



yiran said:


> And it would not to you; it would to some people. Otherwise they wouldn't use it. Yes, other people matter.


Yeah yeah, everyone's entitled to their opinion, I get it. But I've already considered the idea of using post count as a measure of post quality and dismissed it as ridiculous; my goal is not to help propagate an idea I find ridiculous, no matter how many people hold that idea. Little progress would have been made in society if minorities weren't justified in trying to sway the minds of people who hold irrational prejudices. And yes, I used the word "prejudice" again. Feel free to propose a less negative word that nevertheless describes "any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable".



yiran said:


> Okay, I just don't like it. I request that you do not use such analogies when discussing anything with me, unless it is directly related. Thank you.


Yeah, fair enough, it was getting old already. You would nevertheless do well to keep in mind that my far-fetched analogies are of great comedic value, as is evident from my relatively high post count.



yiran said:


> Judging someone based on post count is far less serious than violating copyright laws. There will not be a rule of any sort that restricts judging people based on post count (well, from my deduction that the forum owners are competent enough to avoid such things). *Judging someone based on post count is not as bad as you make it out to be. And since you cannot remove the behaviour, you might as well adapt to it.*
> 
> I really needed to emphasise that.


As I've said before: I still don't understand where severity comes into play. As long as we both agree that _judging post quality based on post count is not a good thing_, neither one of us should be defending it, no matter how absolutely horrifying violation of copyright laws is in comparison.

I also still don't agree that you should adapt to a negative behavior that you're unlikely to be able to get rid of completely. Society wouldn't have gotten very far with that mentality!



yiran said:


> It still was a part of the argument and if you are to use it I should be able to too. It is very unfair if you are allowed to point out sexism when I am not.


You're allowed to mention sexism as much as you want, but your reasoning doesn't hold. It doesn't matter how sexism compares to the issue at hand. It's irrelevant. Sexism is much, much worse than what we're talking about right now, but how is that in any way a justification for judging post quality based on post count?



yiran said:


> Blah, we're repeating ourselves. Combat it. If unsuccessful, adapt to it, since it's not remotely a serious issue.


I disagree. Combat it, then keep combating it. And if you do give up, then do exactly that: give up. Don't go out of your way to actually make changes that benefit the prejudice; if it's not even remotely a serious issue, then ignore it altogether instead of actively attempting to conform to it.



yiran said:


> No. This is entirely of a different magnitude. Is judging people based on post count causing any problems? Repeating myself again. Ugh.


First of all: if it's not causing any problems, why would you bother making your proposed change in the first place? Why not just ignore it, if it's minor enough that it causes no problems? I can honestly not fathom why you would actively try to change the forums to better align with the prejudice that post count somehow reflects post quality - _especially_ if you think it's so unimportant that it can't even be considered a bad thing.

Secondly: you've spent most of this post talking about how, yes, this post count judging thing is very much real and many people really do care about post count and it's a legitimate opinion that many people hold. If that's the case (which I don't believe), then this really _is_ serious enough that we should try to work against it.



yiran said:


> Look at my response which involves eating food.
> 
> And while "counting posts is for counting posts" is _true_, it makes a terrible argument because anyone with basic grasp of the English language can infer that.


It's a terrible argument because virtually everyone here can understand it? Well, that's new!

Fact of the matter is, we don't need post count to _do_ anything. Some people like it. That's it.



yiran said:


> Everything has a point.


Oh, no, not really. Things have points that depend on other things having points; ultimately it all boils down to "this just is", points be damned.



yiran said:


> You just said that my best argument was about utilising things that aren't utilised properly. That was to make them have a point.


But they can't have a point unless you accept the arbitrary nature of points. Objectively, purpose doesn't exist; it exists subjectively because we arbitrarily define some things to be meaningful. And if people decide that having post count is enjoyable, what else is needed? It doesn't have to do anything beyond counting posts as long as that's what people feel like it should be doing.



yiran said:


> What is with _you_ and your insistence on pointless things? I don't get why you want pointless things. What benefit do you get? Why have things when they don't have a point?


I enjoy them. _Why_ do I enjoy them? What is the _point_ in enjoying things? The answer is that I don't know and don't care to know; in the end, you don't do things because there's a point to it, but because that's what humans do. _Why_ is that what humans do? What is the _point_? You can't just keep asking these questions forever and ever; sooner or later you have to settle for "there's no point, this is what I believe in for no reason".



yiran said:


> We could make it cause more good than it is currently.


How would your proposed change cause good? Moments ago you said post count-based judging was causing no problems; hence, turning off post count in Forum Games would do no good because you're not solving any problems (since there were none in the first place).

On the other hand, if post count-based judging _is_ indeed problematic, then it's something we should be working against, not accommodating.



yiran said:


> ... This is just so frustrating because you think things that have no points should be kept, even if they have no points. And... why are you asking what is the purpose of logical arguments? Will you have a problem if I start presenting you with illogical arguments? Because I will do that exclusively to you from now on in this thread if you don't think logical arguments have a purpose.


They can serve a purpose if you allow for purpose to be arbitrarily defined; otherwise, they can't, because ultimately, what is the purpose of logic? You could argue that logic is a tool that can be used to promote whatever you've defined to be meaningful, but then you need to do just that: define something to be meaningful for no reason. And if you allow for that, then post count needs no reason to exist beyond other people wanting it to be there.



yiran said:


> I do agree Butterfree's post makes sense (and most others), but I still think my posts make more sense. (Otherwise I wouldn't be using up two hours to make this post in favour of removing Forum Games' post count, duh.) Music Dragon's views make no sense to me, however. Just me being me.


Camus says you must roll the boulder and enjoy it. _Enjoy it._



yiran said:


> Hmm... wouldn't it be a more accurate measure of how much someone posts when the type of posts is restricted to a more narrow range?


No, because then you're not counting all the posts they're making.



yiran said:


> This is the problem I have with your posts. You're clearly intelligent enough to know that Zero Moment meant he judges people based on post count, but for whatever reason, you ignore it.


I don't ignore what people say, I'm just not as blunt as you are; I'm more into subtlety, rhetoric, palm reading... that kind of thing.



yiran said:


> Does it matter? It's still judging people, even if it's not their quality of post but what type of people they are (forum-wise).


Using post count in conjunction with join date to determine a person's posting habits is logical, because post count and join date are actually connected to posting habits (high post count and recent join date means you've been very active since you joined, for instance). Trying to judge the quality of a person's post using their post count is different because there is no connection between post count and post quality that can be relied upon. One makes sense, the other does not.

I'm finding it difficult to figure out whether you actually think this is an important issue or not, but it really doesn't matter: if people judging post quality based on post count is an important issue, we shouldn't be trying to adapt to it, we should be doing our best to counteract it; and if it's an utterly unimportant issue, then we still shouldn't be trying to adapt to it, we should be ignoring it.


----------



## Datura

I'm still angry at opal for beating me to 5,000 posts on the Invisionfree forums. >:(


----------



## Cerberus87

You say post count doesn't matter. I agree.

However, in this forum there are a lot of kids who powerpost their way to 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 in FG and think that being a Butterfree is going to have a huge effect on their lives and make their lives magical. So making FG posts not count would effect them. I'd say it would force them to become a little more mature.

I mean, if you even introduce a ranking system that requires 1,000 posts to reach the top, it's because, at least to some degree, post counts matter. And 1,000 posts in a forum is no easy feat. A rank is something that should be earned, not be cheated upon.

In one of my sigs I've made it a point, even. I'll make my way to Butterfree through the regular path. It may take years, it may not even happen, but I believe that, by pointing it out, I'm showing something to other people. You may call it stupid, but I think it has its importance, its significance.

So yes, I fully agree with yiran.


----------



## Tailsy

you sound like you're climbing a bus stop and calling it a mountain, a little bit.


----------



## Butterfree

Cerberus said:


> You say post count doesn't matter. I agree.
> 
> However, in this forum there are a lot of kids who powerpost their way to 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 in FG and think that being a Butterfree is going to have a huge effect on their lives and make their lives magical. So making FG posts not count would effect them. I'd say it would force them to become a little more mature.
> 
> I mean, if you even introduce a ranking system that requires 1,000 posts to reach the top, it's because, at least to some degree, post counts matter. And 1,000 posts in a forum is no easy feat. A rank is something that should be earned, not be cheated upon.
> 
> In one of my sigs I've made it a point, even. I'll make my way to Butterfree through the regular path. It may take years, it may not even happen, but I believe that, by pointing it out, I'm showing something to other people. You may call it stupid, but I think it has its importance, its significance.
> 
> So yes, I fully agree with yiran.


I doubt anyone thinks being a Butterfree will make their lives magical. It's just an arbitrary goal they want to strive towards because it's there, like level 100 in a Pokémon game. And I honestly don't see what the problem is with them striving towards it.

They're enjoying it, they're excitedly watching their post count go up, they're being proud when they grow in rank... and what's wrong with that? They're kids having fun. Literally the only people for whom it makes any logical sense to be vehemently opposed to this are people who are, to put it bluntly, simply jealous that some kids powerposting in Forum Games have a higher post count than themselves. If you truly have matured beyond wanting the highest post count, then you shouldn't _care_ if some people have massive post counts for less intellectual posts than yours.

"There are post ranks, therefore post count matters" is a non-sequitur - post ranks don't matter either. It's all just statistics. There is no reason you should feel inadequate because you aren't a Butterfree. You don't gain any extra privileges for it whatsoever: it is just a picture in your postbit. Striving towards it is completely optional. If you enjoy striving towards it, that's great, but it's a challenge you're setting for yourself, and if someone else chooses to post a lot in Forum Games and gets a higher rank because of that, it isn't relevant to you or your personal goal-setting any more than someone else with a Pokémon game choosing to raise their Pokémon to level 100 using the Day-Care.


----------



## yiran

Butterfree said:


> See, this is the part of your argument that really doesn't make sense to me. People who post a lot in Forum Games _are_ posting a lot. They _are_ very active, and they _are_ probably fairly well-known on the forums, at least among the people who frequent the same categories they do. For every measure you can sensibly deduce from post count (of which length or thoughtfulness of posts is not one and never will be), people who post a lot in Forum Games genuinely do rank highly. You would get an _inaccurate_ picture of how active and prominent a member is overall if posts in Forum Games were excluded. And because post count has exactly nothing to do with the quality of your posts even outside of Forum Games, post count could never become a remotely accurate way to gauge that even if we did exclude Forum Games. On the whole, snap judgements based on post counts are likely more accurate if Forum Games are included, because then at least the measure of activity and prominence are correct, even if the ludicrously inaccurate measure of post quality they shouldn't be deducing from there anyway become ever so slightly more ludicrously inaccurate.


This makes logical sense up until the last point; I don't believe it is an accurate measure of activity, as hypothetically a person could just continue to post in the forum games constantly (achieving high a post count), but in a limited time period, while others make a lot of posts in other forums (achieving a low post count), which results in a misjudgment of actvity. Prominence is also not very accurate as it is quite synonymous with quality, and you could know absolutely nothing about a person who has 2000 posts which are racked up solely through posting in Forum Games. The previous examples are exaggerations but I think I've got my point across clearly enough.

And anyway, I think I should have worded it better – it's that the Forum Games causes the misjudgment of a user, since from what I've seen in most forums (on the Internet), users largely post the same; a few thought out posts and a few one/two-liner posts. Of course even then it's not going to be accurate because some post more thought out posts than others, but it eliminates the Forum Games as a major affecter of the accuracy of judging with post count.



Butterfree said:


> The thing is I don't think there _is_ a "correct course of action" inherent to the matter. The whole issue is silly and I don't see why anyone really cares exactly what post count is counting, except in that vague kind of "Hey, I like statistics for statistics' sake" way. The correct course of action when there isn't a definitive right thing to do is whatever makes the largest number of people happy. Hence, doing whatever people complain less about.
> 
> I actually find pretty striking here that you care so much. Why _is_ it so vastly important to you that the inevitably inaccurate snap judgements people make about other people shouldn't include posts in Forum Games that you'll persist in arguing it even in the face of most people including the administrator disagreeing? If this were a genuine moral issue and you were standing up for something you perceive as _the right thing_, yeah, you should definitely not let it deter you no matter who disagrees, but a suggestion as trivial as "let's not include this forum in the post count" has no reason to inspire that kind of passion, especially when you agree that post count is never going to be a decent measure of post quality and have yourself argued in response to Music Dragon that people judging each other based on post count isn't a big deal. It makes no sense for you to be arguing this so fiercely purely on the principle you claim to be defending (making premature subconscious inherently inaccurate snap judgements about people's post thoughtfulness by other people who have yet to get to know them at all maybe a teensy-weensy bit more accurate on a rough average).
> 
> What it sounds like to me, and I'm sorry to be jumping to conclusions about you but you're making it difficult not to, is that you yourself are just feeling kind of insecure and intimidated as a new member, want to gain some respect on the forums, and feel like when other people are racking up enormous post counts through posting in Forum Games, people are unfairly going to pay more attention to them than to you even though you've been expending far more effort making good posts than them.
> 
> And yeah, I'm sure many people have felt like that - I've felt like that when registering on forums when I was fourteen or fifteen - but the thing is that people judge you incorrectly on irrelevant features every day, and that's just something you have to deal with. People may judge you if your post count is low, but they may also judge you if you don't have an avatar, or based on your username or signature, or the fact you use the phrase "sugar high" in your signature, or the fact you have a tumblr. And those judgements can be totally inaccurate. But when people _read_ your posts and see you around in discussions, they'll see for themselves how much thought you put into your posts. You don't need to be so concerned with those initial snap judgements people might make; instead, focus on how you come across when people start to form an actual impression of who you are.
> 
> Making long, well-thought-out posts actually puts you at a disadvantage postcount-wise, because in the time that it takes you to write one post, somebody else could have made ten insignificant posts in random polls in Miscellaneous or Insanity - and that fact will remain even if we exclude Forum Games from the post count. Some people may try to judge post quality from post count anyway, _but that judgement is never going to be correct no matter what forums we choose to exclude_. If you make well-thought-out posts, people are going to see that you make well-thought-out posts, even if your post count is low.


Yes, there probably is no correct course of action, now that I think from that perspective. However, one course of action is better than the other, and that's what we're discussing about.

There's no need to be sorry, as I don't feel offended. However, I believe your assumption is wrong. Key words being "I believe". I know I'm not mature as the older people who have had more experience in say, figuring out why their brain is working in such a way, and therefore I may be subconsciously acting due to the reasons you posted; I just don't think that's why I'm acting. However, I can say that one thing that influenced me to make this thread was the fear of being not accepted for posting in the forum games, the fear of people judging me as someone who is just relying on it to get posts. I understand that the fear is quite immature and irrational, but it's my subconscious will and I can't really physically change that. At least I can say that's only partially the reason as to why I created the thread.

Anyway, regarding the "overly passionate about trivial things" stuff; I'm just that type of person. It's kind of like advocating for gay rights when you're not gay (although that's quite a bad example, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to get to). For instance, in class today, out of nowhere I asked what the teacher thought of incest (it was a PSHE session so it wasn't inappropriate, but it was still out of the blue) and I got into an argument against the entire class AND the teacher. People kept on giving me examples, such as "if you were to sleep with your parents or brother", and I agree that I find the idea quite repulsive, but not everyone can claim the same.

I'm getting really sidetracked. My point is, I just happen to side with the minority/underrepresented side which I'm not a part of in many cases and I also happen to debate very passionately. It may or may not be due to my like for arguing with other people. It just happens. I still hate my brain for being so inconclusive.



Butterfree said:


> I think you misunderstood me; I wasn't talking about people being hostile towards people who post in Forum Games. I was asking what the point of having post count discriminate against posts in forum games (by not counting them) is, given post count can't discriminate between useful, high-quality posts and spammy one-liners anywhere else anyway. Hence the lion analogy: why bother trying to put a saddle on the lion when you're not going to be able to ride it either way?


I don't get the analogy. :/ Anyway, I still believe that Forum Games is on a separate level of messing with the accuracy of posts. It is quite a valid point, though.



Butterfree said:


> That was a fanciful exaggeration expressing my annoyance with people thinking they have a right to destroy something other people enjoy (whether it's Forum Games or sandcastles) just because they themselves don't care for it.


Okay, then. Ignore my point :P

But anyway, I do see the logic in your points, and I'm actually starting to find myself to agree with them; it may just me being opinionated (or other people like Music Dragon saying arguments that I really passionately disagree against), but I'm still not that convinced. Well, I guess you have to be good at debating to be able to maintain a forum :/

I'll get to the others later. For now, blissful sleep awaits.


----------



## shy ♡

You know, your insistence on using your subconscious as an excuse is quite tiresome. I'm pretty sure you _can_ control these thoughts, you just don't want to. They are _your_ thoughts. They're not inherent parts of you, like your need to eat or sleep or even who you're attracted to. They're thoughts about posting on a pokemon forum. You really, really can control them if you took the time to try.

Also, I speak only for myself, but I'm pretty sure this thread did a whole lot more with regards to judging your character than whether you'd posted a whole lot in forum games.


----------



## Minish

yiran said:


> Anyway, regarding the "overly passionate about trivial things" stuff; I'm just that type of person. It's kind of like advocating for gay rights when you're not gay (although that's quite a bad example, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to get to). For instance, in class today, out of nowhere I asked what the teacher thought of incest (it was a PSHE session so it wasn't inappropriate, but it was still out of the blue) and I got into an argument against the entire class AND the teacher. People kept on giving me examples, such as "if you were to sleep with your parents or brother", and I agree that I find the idea quite repulsive, but not everyone can claim the same.


Um, sorry, but I don't really think you can feel good and just about defending any oppressed underdogs here. Gay rights and incest are both fairly important issues, whereas this really is literally _only_ something you seem to care this much about. Also wow do you really think queer rights are 'trivial' since you're not gay?? (Maybe you are gay. If so, wow, have a _little_ faith in your allies.)


----------



## Cloudsong

I'm a bit confused~

Is the question about why post count is on in the Forum Games section? Or is it about whether or not people here /care/ about post count? Or is it being assumed that people care, post count has some mythical effect on forumers, and we should disable it in Forum Games immediately because _god forbid_ post count counts how many posts we've made o.o!!

Just a bit lost, also, to the whole...'what is post count for' question.

I love unreliable sources :D

If the topic in question is not about whether post count should be on or off, forgive me, it's 2 a.m. my time and my mind is all _whoosh_

If people judge people's maturity/post quality by post count alone, perhaps those people wouldn't really care how the post count was accumulated; seeing how said peoples are apparently ignoring things such as members' general maturity, typing styles, personalities, and, yano, _sticking around_ the forum and becoming friends with the peoples. :3?

_wut am I doing I'm a lurker posting aaaa_


----------



## Tailsy

top of poll said:
			
		

> Do you care whether the Forum Games' forum counts toward your total post count?


that's the question! the discussion has changed the wind slightly. the original question remains the same. if we were all assuming that postcount somehow mattered i don't think we'd be having the same discussion. 

well i'm not having a discussion i'm posting gifs but wevs.


----------



## ultraviolet

yiran said:


> I'm getting really sidetracked. My point is, I just happen to side with the minority/underrepresented side which I'm not a part of in many cases and I also happen to debate very passionately. It may or may not be due to my like for arguing with other people. It just happens. I still hate my brain for being so inconclusive.


but nobody's being _oppressed_. It's not as though anyone's picking on people for caring about postcount or posting in forum games. man, even the minority here apparently can't be arsed to talk about it because it is literally so trivial. You disagree with the people you are sticking up for in this thread and it's obvious because your argument is all over the place ("well, other people do this, I think it's wrong, but someone should stick up for them, but we should take postcount off forum games") and that's why it's taken three pages for people to actually get what you're trying to say.

there is a difference between sticking up for minority rights and siding with underrepresented sides just because you can! this is especially so when you're arguing something that you don't even believe in yourself. This isn't like sticking up for quiltbag rights at all; you disagree with the opinion you're defending, whereas you can argue that quiltbag people deserve rights even when you're straight. They're not mutually exclusive like two opposing opinions. The analogy would be more correct if you hated quiltbag people, but argued for their rights anyway because they happen to be the minority.

man, if you believe in something, stick up for _that_, not other people that you disagree with that happen to be under-represented. you can hardly call yourself opinionated if you argue opinions that aren't even yours.


----------



## yiran

Pathos said:


> You know, your insistence on using your subconscious as an excuse is quite tiresome. I'm pretty sure you _can_ control these thoughts, you just don't want to. They are _your_ thoughts. They're not inherent parts of you, like your need to eat or sleep or even who you're attracted to. They're thoughts about posting on a pokemon forum. You really, really can control them if you took the time to try.
> 
> Also, I speak only for myself, but I'm pretty sure this thread did a whole lot more with regards to judging your character than whether you'd posted a whole lot in forum games.


I am not lying about what I think is happening. That's all I have to say for your point about subconsciousness.

My character only appeared in the past few posts due to Butterfree talking about it. I'm happy to drop it if everyone else is okay with it.



Cirrus said:


> Um, sorry, but I don't really think you can feel good and just about defending any oppressed underdogs here. Gay rights and incest are both fairly important issues, whereas this really is literally _only_ something you seem to care this much about. Also wow do you really think queer rights are 'trivial' since you're not gay?? (Maybe you are gay. If so, wow, have a _little_ faith in your allies.)


I am fairly sure I am not gay. And I said it was a bad comparison, but I really couldn't find anything else especially since I was quite tired when posting the post. You seem to be taking my words as an insult to gay people by calling them trivial, and I'm clarifying here than nothing of the sort is intended.



ultraviolet said:


> but nobody's being _oppressed_. It's not as though anyone's picking on people for caring about postcount or posting in forum games. man, even the minority here apparently can't be arsed to talk about it because it is literally so trivial. You disagree with the people you are sticking up for in this thread and it's obvious because your argument is all over the place ("well, other people do this, I think it's wrong, but someone should stick up for them, but we should take postcount off forum games") and that's why it's taken three pages for people to actually get what you're trying to say.
> 
> there is a difference between sticking up for minority rights and siding with underrepresented sides just because you can! this is especially so when you're arguing something that you don't even believe in yourself. This isn't like sticking up for quiltbag rights at all; you disagree with the opinion you're defending, whereas you can argue that quiltbag people deserve rights even when you're straight. They're not mutually exclusive like two opposing opinions. The analogy would be more correct if you hated quiltbag people, but argued for their rights anyway because they happen to be the minority.
> 
> man, if you believe in something, stick up for _that_, not other people that you disagree with that happen to be under-represented. you can hardly call yourself opinionated if you argue opinions that aren't even yours.


I know they're not oppressed, and I know they have the chance to speak, and I know it's their fault that they're not speaking out for themselves and it's really none of my business, but I just feel this way about the situation and I say what I feel and I argue for it.

As for arguing what I'm not believing in; I think of it more like me using arguments for people I don't agree with as a method to support my original point (which I do believe in myself).

-


Please stop questioning my honesty, because anyone could just easily shout "YOU'RE LYING" at the opponent in a discussion and then it suddenly becomes deprived of logic.

And anyway, I could have easily lied/not mentioned it and you wouldn't know. These points are about why I shouldn't be arguing, not why my argument is wrong. And to be fair, it's my decision as to which side to argue for.

Ugh, for some reason, I don't enjoy this debate as much as I do others. Maybe I'll just stop posting. =/


----------



## Phantom

You all are taking this waaay too seriously. It's just a little number.


----------



## 1. Luftballon

Phantom said:


> You all are taking this waaay too seriously. It's just a little number.


the argument seems to be over whether it is just a little number, and why is it just a little number and ...


----------



## Phantom

sreservoir said:


> the argument seems to be over whether it is just a little number, and why is it just a little number and ...


Ha

But we've had this argument before, and it's always the same thing.


----------

